Bridgewater State University Virtual Commons - Bridgewater State University Honors Program Theses and Projects Undergraduate Honors Program 5-12-2014 Exploring Omissions from Historical Chronicles in Shakespeare's Second Tetralogy Christopher Roy Follow this and additional works at: http://vc.bridgew.edu/honors_proj Part of the English Language and Literature Commons Recommended Citation Roy, Christopher. (2014). Exploring Omissions from Historical Chronicles in Shakespeare's Second Tetralogy. In BSU Honors Program Theses and Projects. Item 65. Available at: http://vc.bridgew.edu/honors_proj/65 Copyright © 2014 Christopher Roy This item is available as part of Virtual Commons, the open-access institutional repository of Bridgewater State University, Bridgewater, Massachusetts. Exploring Omissions from Historical Chronicles in Shakespeare’s Second Tetralogy Christopher Roy Submitted in Partial Completion of the Requirements for Departmental Honors in English Bridgewater State University May 12, 2014 Dr. James Crowley, Thesis Director Dr. Michael McClintock, Committee Member Dr. Benjamin Carson, Committee Member Roy 2 Shakespeare excludes far more information than he includes from the Tudor chronicles that provide a historical basis for his English history plays. His many exclusions or omissions from the historical records of his time can be more illuminating than his inclusions, even as they tend to receive less attention from critics. The works of Edward Hall and Raphael Holinshed make up the bulk of background material for the plays' historical narratives. Eight of the ten (or eleven, if one includes Edward III) English history plays are divisible into two broad groups: the first tetralogy, consisting of the three parts of Henry VI along with Richard III, and the second tetralogy, made up of Richard II, the two parts of Henry IV, and Henry V. This analysis will focus on Shakespeare's omissions from historical chronicles in plays from the second tetralogy. The pattern of the playwright's exclusions from Holinshed in the second tetralogy draws attention to the lack of a fixed framework of historical causation in the English history plays. One issue of import is Shakespeare's use of multiple historical sources for his history plays. Given the available evidence, we cannot know for certain why he used one work in place of another, but there is ample room for educated guessing. For reasons that remain murky, Hall provides the bulk of the background material in the first tetralogy, while Holinshed takes on a much greater role in the second, and there are numerous other sources, whether definite, probable, or possible. These range from the anonymous plays Thomas of Woodstock and The Famous Victories of Henry V to Samuel Daniel's epic poem Civil Wars, Froissart's Chronicles (in translation), A Mirror for Magistrates, and John Stow's Annals of England. We also know that Holinshed was not the sole author of the Chronicles. They were the work of multiple authors, each with differing religious views and political agendas. The large number of sources has led a few critics, such as J. Dover Wilson, to speculate that Shakespeare based at least some of his English history plays on works that are now lost, written by a long-forgotten person who was Roy 3 steeped in English history to an extent that Shakespeare was supposedly incapable of reaching. This seems unlikely. It should not seem surprising that the playwright had an interest in English history and a corresponding appreciation for the multiple perspectives available in historical chronicles. Why should he limit himself to Hall or Holinshed? It is possible, too, that Shakespeare derived some of his historical knowledge not from written texts, but rather, from personal conversations with others or from viewing performances of plays such as Woodstock and The Famous Victories of Henry the Fifth. In any case, Shakespeare's lack of a college education or aristocratic background did not prevent him from being well-read. It appears that the only sort of English historical records that Shakespeare failed to consult were ones available only in manuscript form at the time. Without being a professional historian, he must have lacked the time, inclination, and perhaps social influence to access these. Instead, the exigencies of theatrical performance took precedence. His occasional "minor confusions of names or muddles of fact," as Robert Ornstein has termed them, indicate that he was a playwright first and foremost, not an historian, but this does not allow us to conclude that he was uninterested in factual accuracy (Ornstein 22). Indeed, it is surprising that he does not make more errors in such a large body of work as his English history plays, given that most of his audience would not have expected strict historical accuracy in every detail. The history of criticism on Shakespeare's English history plays also needs to be recognized. A convenient way to frame this discussion is through Shakespeare's English Kings, in which Peter Saccio situates Shakespeare's English history plays in the context of English history as it is now understood. His text is concerned with the historical events on which the plays are based rather than with the works' literary merits. Saccio does acknowledge that he, like other Shakespeareans trained in the 1960s, tends to reflect the influence of E. M. W. Tillyard in Roy 4 his interpretation of the plays (229). This includes viewing the English history plays within a providential framework of historical causation founded on Christian doctrine. Many of Tillyard's contemporaries shared this view, and a few critics continue in the same vein, but for the most part, Tillyard's argument for divine providence as the principal causal force in the English history plays has fallen out of favor. This summary will treat Tillyard as representative of all critics of his time, when in actuality Tillyard and his fellow critics were not a homogenous group. His work was highly influential, however, and his thesis is not so easily dismissed. In order to understand what later critics of the English history plays are reacting against, we must understand the Tudor myth. Saccio also credits the criticism of Robert Ornstein, who offers a strong counterargument to Tillyard in his A Kingdom for a Stage. Ornstein, too, is not the only critic to present a challenge to Tillyard, but he is a prominent example. The main point on which Ornstein differs from Tillyard is in arguing for Shakespeare's non-adherence to any "orthodox" Elizabethan view of history that emphasized the central role of divine providence as the ultimate cause of historical events. Tillyard saw Shakespeare's vision of history in the English history plays as a reflection of the zeitgeist of his time, if it can even be said that there was any one "conventional" outlook in the Elizabethan era, whether toward historical causation or otherwise. The tendency of more recent critics to dismiss Tillyard's views is due in part to a greater understanding that this was not the case. Ornstein, writing much later than Tillyard, emphasizes Shakespeare's role as an individual artist whose creative ingenuity allowed him to depart from orthodoxy without committing a flagrant breach of prevailing attitudes or expectations. Ornstein challenges Tillyard's emphasis on the teleological "Tudor myth" as a driving force behind Shakespeare's depiction of English history. It could be argued that the lack of overt social criticism or political underpinnings in the work of such critics as Tillyard is a Roy 5 political statement in itself, one that is conservative in the sense that it rests on an assumption of unity and stability in the modern world order, with the result that one can examine artistic works such as Shakespeare's almost as if they were self-contained entities, situating them in their own historical context but refusing to judge them in the context of our contemporary political realities. Ornstein argues against Tillyard's rendering of the Tudor myth as a driving force behind Shakespeare's depiction of the past, but he accepts that the playwright still had to work under various constraints in his portrayal of English history. Shakespeare could not, at least to a certain extent, simply make things up, for example. He could not depart from historical chronicles to such a degree that it would change the course of history: Henry cannot decide to stay in exile after Richard banishes him and his son still needs to win at Agincourt. Shakespeare's audience would have been annoyed otherwise. This is less true for the Roman history plays, with their much greater distance from Shakespeare's time, which eases suspension of disbelief, and for King Lear, which is more tragedy than history, more legendary than authentic in its account. At the same time, however, there is an enormous amount of flexibility in the material that makes up the Tudor historical record. Shakespeare takes full advantage of this malleability. The reality of his relative orthodoxy or heterodoxy – whether he was a conventional Tudor royalist as Tillyard suggests or, on the other hand, a subversive historical revisionist – was somewhere between the two extremes. Late 20th century historiography, Saccio observes, has shifted our understanding of historical events closer to how Shakespeare depicts the past in his history plays. Given this revelation, it is tempting to conclude that Shakespeare, with his viewpoint now more closely aligned with our own (or with ours now closer to his), clearly must have understood how Roy 6 medieval people think, with the assumption that "we," as whatever consensus exists with regard to our contemporary understanding of the past, clearly know how medieval people think. Whether or not we make such an assumption, it seems clear that the history plays largely complement rather than contradict today's scholarship: given what we now know about English history, "Shakespeare is quite right to stress the personalities of his kings and their relationships with their nobles" and to show that "kings and other people operate out of a complexity of motives," as Saccio argues (236).